ANIL GUPTA vs Delhi Cantonment Board

ALL the above mentioned seven appeals are directed against a common order, passed by the learned District Forum No. III in Complaint Case Nos. 25/97 entitled Shri Pramod Dhawan v. Delhi Cantonment Board; 26/97 entitled Smt. Meera Bai v. Delhi Cantonment Board; 27/97, entitled Shri Anil Gupta v. Delhi Cantonment Board; 28/97 entitled Shri Jitender Kukreja v. Delhi Cantonment Board; 29/97 entitled Shri Anil Raizada v. Delhi Cantonment Board; 30/97, entitled Shri Satish Kumar Jain v. Delhi Cantonment Board; and 389/97 entitled Shri D.S. Minhas v. Delhi Cantonment Board. By the common order, being impugned in the present proceedings, the learned District Forum has dismissed the seven complaints, filed by the above mentioned seven appellants before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'').

SINCE all the seven appeals, arise out of a common order and have common facts, involving common questions of law, we have heard the same jointly. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants at length on the question of admission of the above mentioned seven appeals and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the appellants stated that the learned District Forum vide order dated 14th January, ''98, passed in Complaint Case No. 837/97 entitled Shri S.K. Kapoor and Associates v. Cantonment Executive Officer, Delhi Cantonment, has given relief to a similarly situated complainant, whereas the same has been denied to the appellants. The learned Counsel for the appellants has also placed on record a copy of the abovesaid order dated 14th January, ''98, passed in S.K. Kapoor''s case (supra). The learned Counsel for the appellants has also placed reliance on two other decisions in cases Ajay Enterprises Ltd. v. Kamlesh Aggarwal, I (1998) CPJ 77(NC); and A. Hariputhran v. The Secretary, Pondicherry Housing Board, I (1998) CPJ (35).

On a perusal of order dated 12th March, ''99, being impugned in the present proceedings, it is apparent that the learned District Forum, placing reliance on two decisions of the National Commission in cases Ashok Tayal & Anr. v. DDA, II (1995) CPJ 3 (NC); and Tamilnadu Housing Board v. R. Siva-Subramaniam, III (1998) CPJ 39 (NC), has held that the complaints filed by the appellants before the District Forum were not maintainable. In our opinion, no fault can be found with the above findings of the learned District Forum so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

AS regards the decision of the District Forum dated 14th January, ''99 in Complaint Case No. 837/97, entitled S.K. Kapoor and ASsociates v. Cantonment Executive Officer, Delhi Cantonment, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants, the position is that the above said decision is an ex parte decision, earlier in point of time. Moreover, the decision of a District Forum is not binding on the State Commission. AS regards the other two decisions in cases A. Hariputhran v. The Secretary, Pondicherry Housing Board (supra), and Ajay Enterprises Ltd. v. Kamlesh Aggarwal (supra), relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the position is that the same also in no way help the cause of the appellants insofar as the present appeals are concerned. In view of the above discussion, in our opinion, the above mentioned appeals, filed by the appellants, are devoid of substance and deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same are dismissed in limine. However, the appellants are given the liberty to approach the appropriate Forum for the redressal of their grievances. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.